Under the Soviet Union, a factory was never just a factory; it was a vital tool in the war on capitalist oppression. Every organ of society was repurposed to achieve a utopian society, as imagined by communism. The Soviet Union even manipulated science, as the case of Lysenkoism shows. You see something similar with today’s Men’s Rights Movement.

Take the military, for example. When the American military announced that it would start putting women in combat, Men’s Rights Advocates (MRAs) rejoiced. Letting women fight is stupid and dangerous for any number of reasons; women are markedly weaker than men, and even if they were held to the same standards, the number of women who would qualify be so few so as to not be worth it. The inevitable rise in allegations of sexual assault and rape among soldiers at war would more than counter any increase in the quality of recruits, if any actually occurred. As Dick Masterson says, “A woman in the army always does more harm than good – and usually more troops than harm.”

One could cite countless more reasons, but to the MRA, that’s all irrelevant. To him, the military exists not to protect the nation, but to deliver gender equality. MRAs don’t care how effective the military is; to say that our men might get slaughtered on the battlefield because of MRA policies is not even a criticism – because the goal of the military would no longer be to defend our citizens, but to uproot traditional sex roles. It’ll all be worth it because it will mean treating women like men. And the military is but one example.

This is already happening with multiculturalism. The goal of a business is no longer to turn a profit, the end of a university is no longer to share the truth – the goal is everywhere always ‘celebrating diversity.’ There is a middle phase, where ideologues assure us that the new goals are at peace with the old ones – that say, multiculturalism won’t harm the academy’s search for truth. Eventually, the original, specific goals of these institutions are discarded outright, so that the ideology of the day can create ‘progress’ unimpeded. Once transformed, it will be demonstrably inferior at accomplishing the goal it had before – there will be more losses on the battlefield and more lies from the labia of academe. But that won’t be a problem, because success in the old realms of honor and truth will be irrelevant. Now, these organs of society exist to push the -ism of the day, whether that’s communism, feminism or men’s rights. Properly understood, men’s rights is just another batty shade of utopian leftism.

As utopians, MRAs don’t much care about any social institution for its own traditional role, but only insofar as it promotes ‘gender equality.’ Its goal is to remake every institution in society until androgyny of the sexes is attained and expected, and the ‘oppression’ of men has ceased. I’ve yet to meet any MRAs in person, so it’s hard to understand exactly why they’re so hostile to traditional sex roles. But they bear an uncanny resemblance to feminists because they resent the duties and limits that their sex imposes.

They are like fat chicks trying to redefine beauty to mean vile obesity. They are pariahs. Which would be fine, if they would simply leave everyone else alone, and carry on amongst themselves. Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) do exactly that, for which they have my respect. But like fat chicks and feminists, MRAs are too insecure for that; they desperately crave the wider society’s approval. They can’t bear to go off on their own while society writes them off. So they try to make pariahdom the new normal. The traditional forms of beauty and virtue become their sworn enemy.

For instance, there is a story posted on the website of the National Center For Men, of one man’s disappointment that even hardcore feminists object to him wearing skirts, even as they only wear pants.

But a man had better act and look like a man. He had better be steady, secure, a good provider and dressed in bifurcated clothing below the waist. A man in a skirt is a direct assault on society’s views about masculinity and male responsibility. The image of him in that skirt seems so ridiculous to so many people because it penetrates deeply to the core of sexist prejudice against men.

This group had also defended a man in a prominent court case. I actually respect the author, for carrying out his beliefs to their logical conclusion, instead of hiding his true colors behind tiny changes. Feminism was supposed to free men and women from the expectations imposed by their sex, and it has succeeded, but mostly with women – no one bats an eye at a woman covered in tattoos, cursing freely, let alone one wearing pants; but if a straight man does anything remotely effeminate, his masculinity will come under question, especially at the hands of women. Even when women claim it’s harmless, they refuse to see these men as worthy of sex, a rather damning fate from a Darwinian perspective. Men’s rights wants to do for men what feminism did for women – make effeminacy as acceptable for men as mannishness is now for women.

The premier goal of MRA is to annihilate these notions that men should be masculine, and women should be feminine. MRAs and feminists are hostile to the idea that masculinity and femininity are desirable. The expectation that males carry themselves like men, strong and stoic, is a point of great irritation to them. Paul Elam, founder of the MRA website A Voice For Men, has said that if men were seen as inherently strong and dominant, males who lack these qualities would be seen as less worthy as men. And that that would be bigotry. To believe that men should be masculine and women should be feminine is ‘dangerous,’ according to Elam. Therefore, to say that men be confident and decisive, or that women be graceful and nurturing, is a sin.

Stony Brook University recently erected a men’s studies department, headed by Michael Kimmel, to the delight of MRAs. A little investigation reveals that Kimmel insists that more gender equality is the answer. The leaders of the men’s rights movement are little more than feminists – and this should come as no surprise to one who truly understands the movement. It’s not just one man wanting permission to wear skirts in public – it’s an entire movement based on discontent with being a man.

The Men’s Right’s Movement Lionizes Victimhood

Deep down, MRAs believe not only that men are victims, but that men can only advocate for their rights insofar as they are victims. Victimhood grants legitimacy. Plight makes right. Look at the issues dearest to MRAs, and you’ll find that stories of male victimhood dominate their discussions. Higher male suicide rates, male circumcision, men as rape victims, false rape accusations, divorce ‘theft,’ and men as victims of domestic violence.

Take that last one for example, a man who is beaten by his woman. Accepting responsibility for oneself is a cornerstone of masculinity; if a man is being abused and dominated against his will, by a woman that he himself has chosen, he has utterly failed as a man. He cannot protect himself, let alone his family or friends. Yet MRAs deify broken men like these, as the very icon of their movement. He who values strength disdains they that prize weakness. I have nothing but disgust for men who pride themselves on being victims; were the MRM to actually value manliness, instead of canonizing failures, it would be more popular. Most men don’t want to parade themselves as victims either.

Elsewhere, they campaign for female-on-male rape to be recognized as a serious issue – an issue so marginal that everyone else writes them off as crazy for even bringing it up. To the feminist’s claims that women are oppressed, the MRA replies, “hey, me too!” Just as feminists go apoplectic at the mention of sensible advice to help avoid getting raped, the MRA will become livid, if told that he can act to avert disaster.

MRAs Want You To Believe There’s Nothing You Can Do

MRAs bleat so urgently, because they think they are powerless as individuals; only by collective action, ultimately by government fiat, can men be helped. He thinks that if he admits that he can take protective measures, some will say it was his fault when something does happen. So, he must deny that a man can do anything about these dangers. Man must be seen as a weak powerless victim, lest we minimize the challenges he faces.

Tell an MRA how to avoid false rape accusations and you’ll just become one of his targets. You’re ruining his narrative of man as helpless victim. Where the MRA retreats from challenge, the masculine man perseveres, to create the life he desires.